Legislation would provide subsidies for low-income broadband access

Program would be funded by tax on consumers' phone service.

New legislation proposed in the House of Representatives would update a government program for telecommunications subsidies, shifting it from telephone service to broadband service. Sponsored by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), the Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 would instruct the FCC to modify the Lifeline program, which currently subsidizes telephone service for low-income Americans, offering help for households to purchase broadband Internet service instead.

"The Lifeline program provides a tangible service to lower-income Americans and it is imperative that the Lifeline program be reformed and modernized to account for broadband services," Rep. Matsui said in a press release.

The Lifeline program is funded by the "Universal Service" fees that appear on Americans' phone bills. In addition to subsidizing service for low-income Americans, the Universal Service Fund also helps pay for service in rural areas. The shift to broadband has long been under discussion in Washington. A government report recommended extending the Lifeline program to broadband in 2010.

The FCC itself has been working to overhaul the complex Universal Service system. According to Matsui, recent changes to the Lifeline program have decreased participation from 18.2 million people last August to 13.2 million this month.

Matsui's proposal has the support of the advocacy group Public Knowledge, which argued that the bill was needed as telecom providers shifted to all-IP telephony services. "Congress and the FCC must ensure that the Lifeline program continues to provide low income Americans access to these networks that connect them to critical 911 services, employment opportunities, and the broader civic community," said PK's Christopher Lewis.

I object to the implementation on general principles. If a broadband subsidy is created it should be funded from either a free charged against paying customers broadband service or from general funds. It should not be funded by a surcharge against phone service. Reuse the rest of the implementing regulations if they're appropriate but phone service isn't the proper funding source.

I won't comment on the specific implementation here, but I do think that Internet access is just as vital these days as telephone access or electric power, and both the telephone and electric company offer Universal Lifeline service.

Personally, I think that the Public Switched Telephone Network will be dying off before long, as people switch to VoIP applications. Already, I can easily live my entire life without a telephone, if I desire, but going without Internet would be very difficult, indeed. I pretty much live my life in the web.

Yet another revenue grab by the government. Yet another insult to our intelligence. Zero transparency as to the percentage of revenue that actually goes to the advertised service and who's pocketing the rest.

Edit: Telcos. I misspoke. I meant "Yet another revenue grab by the telcos"

This is just moving us one step closer to replacing local telcos with broadband ISP's. Think of all that copper that can be repurposed.

I saw the writing on the wall back in the 90's when an Internet carrier called IDT started carrying voice calls over the Internet, completely undermining the traditional phone companies' pricing structures.

Then a little tool called NetMeeting made it possible for people to make voice calls without even the need for a telephone... and I saw the grave stone.

I routinely spend hours in voice chat with friends of mine all over the country. Before VoIP, that kind of calling would have cost me probably $1000 a month. Now it's not just free but trivial: two clicks, and I'm chatting with anyone in my social circle.

And we've reached the point where it's not just nerds like me that are using computers for voice chat; things like Skype have pretty much become a mainstream thing.

No wonder telcos are working so hard to expand their markets; their business model has been completely gutted over the last decade.

Damn I thought it was bad enough when Comcast/Xfinity started to offer special discounted prices to low-income households (they think this PR bullshit can legitimize gouging the rest of us?!).

Now the government wants to step in to provide the extra funding so that the cable companies don't even have to take a small discount when providing service to the poor, they can continue to exploit their local monopolies to scam us?

Cellular and telco pricing is an absolute scandal of our times. One of the least competitive industries in America and the lack of quality is holding back billions in economic growth.

Instead of passing a law that will give money away for some arbitrary feel good reason how about passing laws which would allow municipalities build out free wi-fi networks and tell the telcos who bitch to F-OFF.

It does not have to be the fastest available in the area but for people who can not afford their own service it would be better than what they have now which is presumably nothing.

These same networks could be beefed up and have 'subnets' -for lack of a better word- for schools, fire, police, ambulance, city services and such.

The intent is admirable. But this handout, just like every other government handout program, will be abused by people who aren't entitled to it, or by criminals looking to get value out of US taxpayers. We need to solve that ASAP, before these programs go bankrupt. But hell if anyone knows how.

The intent is admirable. But this handout, just like every other government handout program, will be abused by people who aren't entitled to it, or by criminals looking to get value out of US taxpayers. We need to solve that ASAP, before these programs go bankrupt. But hell if anyone knows how.

I don't really think this is the issue. The criminals exploiting this issue are the telcos.They received money to buy the networks and built only on major cities, where the profits are. Now they want more money to do the same thing? They will simply pocket the money and leave this poor people out to dry.

I know lots of people who get by just fine without internet. They don't bother with it or they go to a library...this isn't a necessity, I don't understand why it needs to be paid for by everyone else and handed out to those that can't afford it (this begs the question how or what they'd use to connect if they had subsidized service, surely if they can afford a capable system they can pay entry level else it isn't that truly important). Their money and everyone else's money would be better spent supporting those in true need of basic necessities (you know, heat food and water...???). Ridiculous...

Yet another revenue grab by the government. Yet another insult to our intelligence. Zero transparency as to the percentage of revenue that actually goes to the advertised service and who's pocketing the rest.

I think you meant by the Telcos. It is payback for all of the money they "donated" to the leadership.

I know lots of people who get by just fine without internet. They don't bother with it or they go to a library...this isn't a necessity, I don't understand why it needs to be paid for by everyone else and handed out to those that can't afford it (this begs the question how or what they'd use to connect if they had subsidized service, surely if they can afford a capable system they can pay entry level else it isn't that truly important). Their money and everyone else's money would be better spent supporting those in true need of basic necessities (you know, heat food and water...???). Ridiculous...

It is getting to be a necessity though. Just to give one example, my daughter goes to a public school in a small, mostly middle and working class town and has homework that has to be done on-line on the company website ( https://www.castlelearning.com/review/c ... /home.aspx ).

Or there's always the many companies that are replacing printed instruction manuals and troubleshooting guides with a link to a website. Unless you want to do repairs in the middle of the library...

How about we make sure the current money collected by the Phone Mafia because of this fee is actually used for the purpose it was collected for before we increase the feed so it can't be used to expand broadband to the 99%

They don't need legislation. In 1996 the law was changed to give $200 billion to the telecom companies so they could deploy broadband to everyone ("National Infrastructure Initiative"). Needless to say they kept the $200 billion but did not deploy broadband. It is about time they spent that money plus almost two decades of interest.

I know lots of people who get by just fine without internet. They don't bother with it or they go to a library...this isn't a necessity, I don't understand why it needs to be paid for by everyone else and handed out to those that can't afford it (this begs the question how or what they'd use to connect if they had subsidized service, surely if they can afford a capable system they can pay entry level else it isn't that truly important). Their money and everyone else's money would be better spent supporting those in true need of basic necessities (you know, heat food and water...???). Ridiculous...

It is getting to be a necessity though. Just to give one example, my daughter goes to a public school in a small, mostly middle and working class town and has homework that has to be done on-line on the company website ( https://www.castlelearning.com/review/c ... /home.aspx ).

Or there's always the many companies that are replacing printed instruction manuals and troubleshooting guides with a link to a website. Unless you want to do repairs in the middle of the library...

Yea, good point...but I think this is a bandaid to a larger issue. Bandaids are ok for short term (sometimes)...I guess my eyes will be opened in a couple years when my daughter starts to get homework that requires it. I keep thinking I'll push her to try and discover information from more sources than google though (granted mfg websites make sense for manuals and such, don't get me wrong, I want her to understand research and learning consists more than just the web is all...).

Yet another revenue grab by the government. Yet another insult to our intelligence. Zero transparency as to the percentage of revenue that actually goes to the advertised service and who's pocketing the rest.

I think you meant by the Telcos. It is payback for all of the money they "donated" to the leadership.

Unless there's some reason to expect that this bill is going somewhere, this story is a waste of time. When an influential republican decides to co-sponsor it, and it's been at least scheduled for a committee hearing, then maybe it's worth an article. Until then it's journalistic masturbation to write it up. Good way to make a few bucks from a press release though.

Do they somehow deserve to not have access, simply because they are poor? Do those of you with this attitude somehow feel that they shouldn't have access to a resource with vast amounts of knowledge, that they could use to improve their lot in life?

Why is it that projects to bring internet to the backwoods of Africa are a great thing, but a method to provide these same services to the poor of our own country is met with such utter disdain?

Do they somehow deserve to not have access, simply because they are poor? Do those of you with this attitude somehow feel that they shouldn't have access to a resource with vast amounts of knowledge, that they could use to improve their lot in life?

Why is it that projects to bring internet to the backwoods of Africa are a great thing, but a method to provide these same services to the poor of our own country is met with such utter disdain?

Truly disgusting.

I think you are missing the point. The telcos have been pocketing money that should have gone for this for years already. In fact if you look to some earlier posts you'll read that these guys have taken hundreds of billions of dollars to develop internet in rural areas and they did little to nothing.

It's not that we care one way or the other if the poor get internet, it's that we already paid for it and think the telcos need to do what they have been paid for.

They don't need legislation. In 1996 the law was changed to give $200 billion to the telecom companies so they could deploy broadband to everyone ("National Infrastructure Initiative"). Needless to say they kept the $200 billion but did not deploy broadband. It is about time they spent that money plus almost two decades of interest.

I know lots of people who get by just fine without internet. They don't bother with it or they go to a library...this isn't a necessity, I don't understand why it needs to be paid for by everyone else and handed out to those that can't afford it (this begs the question how or what they'd use to connect if they had subsidized service, surely if they can afford a capable system they can pay entry level else it isn't that truly important). Their money and everyone else's money would be better spent supporting those in true need of basic necessities (you know, heat food and water...???). Ridiculous...

It is getting to be a necessity though. Just to give one example, my daughter goes to a public school in a small, mostly middle and working class town and has homework that has to be done on-line on the company website ( https://www.castlelearning.com/review/c ... /home.aspx ).

Or there's always the many companies that are replacing printed instruction manuals and troubleshooting guides with a link to a website. Unless you want to do repairs in the middle of the library...

Yea, good point...but I think this is a bandaid to a larger issue. Bandaids are ok for short term (sometimes)...I guess my eyes will be opened in a couple years when my daughter starts to get homework that requires it. I keep thinking I'll push her to try and discover information from more sources than google though (granted mfg websites make sense for manuals and such, don't get me wrong, I want her to understand research and learning consists more than just the web is all...).

I agree kids should learn to research offline as well, thankfully both of mine are avid readers and well versed in navigating the library. But with libraries being a favorite target for budget cutters, (and religious/political ideologues) and schools beginning to assume that students have a computer and internet access at home, the situation is starting to change dramatically.

Do they somehow deserve to not have access, simply because they are poor? Do those of you with this attitude somehow feel that they shouldn't have access to a resource with vast amounts of knowledge, that they could use to improve their lot in life?

Why is it that projects to bring internet to the backwoods of Africa are a great thing, but a method to provide these same services to the poor of our own country is met with such utter disdain?

Truly disgusting.

I think you are missing the point. The telcos have been pocketing money that should have gone for this for years already. In fact if you look to some earlier posts you'll read that these guys have taken hundreds of billions of dollars to develop internet in rural areas and they did little to nothing.

It's not that we care one way or the other if the poor get internet, it's that we already paid for it and think the telcos need to do what they have been paid for.

Correct. From the PBS article linked earlier in the comments: " And the upshot is that I could move to Japan and pay $14 per month for 100-megabit-per-second Internet service but I can't do that here and will probably never be able to."

Even if there isn't a "package" less than 100 Mb/s for less money this figure certainly seems to be easier to subsibize and perhaps one of these poor people could come up with a cool invention using such technology and improve their financial situation.

Quite astounding what this actually means. We allow cable companies and telecos to create huge duopolies and monopolies and charge outrageous prices because they have effectively no competition. We then complain that broadband is too expensive. Instead of making competition easier by dumb pipes or municipal broadband, the solution is to use taxes to fund the outrageous broadband prices fueled by an industry that has carved a fantastically profitable niche out of the lack of regulation.

Free house, free food, free phone, free daycare, retirement funds, free disability insurance, free transportation, and (coming soon) free healthcare PLUS free internet! I feel so silly. All this time I got up early and went to work to buy these things. What an idiot I was.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.